Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

ktvq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 530 posts

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#451

Post by true_religion »

wiz21c wrote: post #284
studentrob wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't envy his position, or any other CEO or leader of a large group. It's a huge responsibility. You can face jail time for not sharing information. Usually only the most egregious violators see a cell, but it's still a scary prospect if you somehow got caught up in some other executive's scheme. At the end of the day, the CEO signs everything. Edit: I see the downvote. Am I wrong? Is being a CEO all rainbows and…

the guy comes forward and says "I'm going to make an autopilot for the masses". He/We know it's tough to do. The guy release its autopilot. It's not quite ready for prime time. Double problem : the guy goes into a tough business alone, the guy makes stuff that's not 100% ready. I like it when people try to do hard stuff, that's fine and maybe heroic. But they have to be prepared : if testing the whole thing must take…

Safe is like 'secure'. It's a relative concept, and the level of safety we are willing to accept from products is something that should be communally decided and required by law.

We shouldn't go off expecting that someone elses ideas of safety will jive 100% with our own, and then blame them when someone else buys a product and is injured.

Should Telsa drive-assist deactivate and slow the car after 10 seconds without touching the wheel? Probably, but I won't blame them for not doing so if there is no regulatory framework to help them make a decision. It's certainly not obvious that 10 seconds is the limit and not 11, or 15 or 2 seconds.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#452

Post by darpa_escapee »

Draiken wrote: post #298
a3n wrote: post #86

I don't understand why Tesla is allowed to release a safety critical system on to the roads when it requires buyers to acknowledge its not-finishedness. They're putting beta systems into an uncontrolled environment. No driver in the nearby lanes has been given that choice.

Am I the only one that thinks people should be held responsible for their own choices? This argument is completely bogus. No driver in the nearby lanes is aware the other driver is drunk, a bad driver or emotionally unstable. The entire idea of beta testing is to have your system on an "uncontrolled environment". The system has bugs, as any beta system does, and whoever uses it should be fully responsible for it. Yes…

If you serve alcohol to a person and they're intoxicated enough to be a danger on the road, you can be held liable for failing to stop them from operating a vehicle if they harm themselves or others. It is your responsibility to cut them off and find them alternate transportation. It is also the fault of the intoxicated driver, but fault doesn't end there.

Similarly, if you provide and advertise an Autopilot feature that isn't autopilot, it is your responsibility to ensure the driver is attentive, has their hands on the wheel and that you pushed a not-broken implementation to them. Other manufacturers have done this, yet Tesla hasn't.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#453

Post by forgetsusername »

givinguflac wrote: post #312
forgetsusername wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is the auto-maker responsible? Why would the auto-maker be responsible for your distracted driving, and what does it have to do with cruise control? Some of the uproar about these incidents is related to the fact that Tesla marketing is implying far more automation and safety here than the technology can actually provide. And apparently it can cost lives.

Exactly, they shouldn't be responsible for distracted driving. Autopilot can certainly get better, but you're being willfully ignorant if you don't believe that these Tesla drivers with their hands off the wheel don't fall under distracted driving. Could autopilot improve? Yes. Is the driver at fault here for not staying alert and responsible for the car they chose to drive? Absolutely. Please show me a source for th…

>Please show me a source for the claim that they're "implying far more automation"

Th key word is "implying". Of course they say "keep your hands on the wheel" in the instruction manual.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#454

Post by NhanH »

jessaustin wrote: post #404
jrockway wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using the word "it" to describe human children now?

Yeah this thread has really squicked me out. Of course dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors of all sorts. I'd like to hope, however, that outside the current commuter-hell driving context, few people would even admit to themselves, let alone broadcast to the world, their considered preference for killing children. That is, when they no longer drive, perhaps people won't be quite so insan…

I don't even drive at all, and yet this thread irks me from the other direction. Dehumanization is an age-old tactic for enabling asshole behaviors, and bringing children into a discussion is an age old tactic for justifying irrational decisions ("Think of the children").

You claimed that any car may be driven slowly enough to avoid killing people on the road with only mere convenient to others. That's patently false: firetruck. And then there are several other posters claiming that it's the driver fault if any accident happens at all, due to the mere fact that the driver chooses to drive a car. If we remove every single vehicle in the US out of the street tomorrow, a whole lot of people would die, directly or indirectly. I'd like to see anyone stating outright that "usage of cars in modern society have no benefit insofar as saving human lives is concerned".

In the end, I think both sides are fighting a straw-man, or rather, imagine different scenario in the discussion. I read the original poster as imagine a case where swerving means on a freeway potentially being deadly for at least 2 vehicles, along with a multi-vehicle pile up. You're imaging suburban CA where swerving means some inconvenience with the insurance company. I have little doubt that everyone would swerve to avoid the collision in the latter.

Also since we're on HN and semantic nit-picking is a ritual around here, "avoid killing children in the road above all other priorities, including the lives of passengers" is NOT a good idea. As far as the car knows, I might have 3 kids in the backseats.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#455

Post by qaq »

cmurf wrote: post #395
qaq wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be very reasonable if the feature was not experimental. You specifically turn on experimental feature and then purposefully ignore instructions on using that experimental feature. This is obviously manufacturer's fault.

Yes. It is completely predictable some percentage of people ignore instructions of when production quality features. That's why the fail safe comes first, even in an experimental feature. If you can't provide fail safe, it's not ready for prime time, including testing by the public.

Cool logic. I guess we should stop prescribing drugs because there is no failsafe when people ignore dosage and directions. We should stop selling microwaves cause people might ignore warning and put a cat there... There is of course an alternative of people actually being responsible for doing stupid things and not blaming everyone and everything for their own actions.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#456

Post by darpa_escapee »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #179
greendestiny wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If planes had to fly within centimetres of hard barriers there would be no autopilot.

I trust a computer much more than a human to keep a tiny gap at high speed for hours on end. Also if you have a nice clear barrier, it becomes easier to automatically manage steering.

Humans program computers. There's a reason standards like MISRA C exist: it is critical to minimize error in human abstractions (code) which run on systems that put people's safety in jeopardy. Humans aren't wired to emulate machines perfectly in their minds, yet computers will do exactly what we tell them to do. You are implicitly placing trust in the humans who programmed those computers.

We saw how human factors can complicate the correctness of code in the Toyota unintended acceleration case. The instruction fed to the system by its programmers were incorrect and not up to industry standards. Computers caused the accidents in that case, despite human intervention by drivers.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#457

Post by wvenable »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #447
wvenable wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying a plane is more difficult, therefore requires more training. But driving a car requires licensing (certification) and training.

I had to pass a 20 question multiple choice test, drive at 15mph on a short course and parallel park to get my license at 17 years old. That was my only certification process. Unless laws change, I will never have to go through a training or certification process again in my life. Comparing pilot certification to that of a driver's is disingenuous.

Thankfully, it's not that easy in all countries. For my test, 3 failures in any category was an instant fail. It's fairly hard to pass the first time.

Although if US drivers are so untrained, perhaps auto-pilot is even more relevant.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#458

Post by Animats »

sharmajai wrote: post #331
Animats wrote: post #109

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

The Pennsylvania turnpike case hasn't been shown to involve autopilot yet. Tesla's logs have evidence to the contrary.

No, Tesla issued a somewhat deceptive press release to make people think that:

"Tesla received a message from the car on July 1st indicating a crash event, but logs were never transmitted. We have no data at this point to indicate that Autopilot was engaged or not engaged. This is consistent with the nature of the damage reported in the press, which can cause the antenna to fail."[1]

When that gets trimmed down to a sound bite, it can give the impression the vehicle was not on autopilot.

The driver told the state trooper he was on autopilot.[2] He was on a long, boring section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike; that's the most likely situation to be on autopilot.

The NTSB will sort this out.

[1] http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Was-Tesla-invol... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-11/pennsylvan...

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#459

Post by dimino »

studentrob wrote: post #449
phaemon wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good question. It's not safer. I think it is. Given the number of Autopilot miles driven, you'd only expect one death so far, so that we have one doesn't really tell us anything. However, injuries from car crashes are (fortunately!) much more common - roughly 60 times as likely. So you'd expect to have about 60 Autopilot incidents resulting in injury by now. I don't really keep up with Tesla news but, based on the…

> What do you think? I think it's not safer based on existing data. Musk was pretty quick to tout that autopilot is safer over 100 million miles driven. It turns out his statistic was not as useful as it could have been. There was no mention of conditions in which autopilot is not likely to be engaged such as adverse weather or non-divided roads. Plus some deaths are from motorcycles, which, it seems, should somehow…

It sounds like you're willing to speculate/entertain assumptions (e.g. regarding miles of "relatable" road usage) when it harms Tesla, but not when it might help them.

Re: Tesla confirms “Autopilot” crash in Montana

#460

Post by [deleted] »

Animats wrote: post #109

With three accidents on "autopilot" in a short period, the defects in Tesla's design are becoming clear. 1. Tesla's "hands on wheel" enforcement is much weaker than their competitors. BMW, Volvo, and Mercedes have similar systems, but after a few seconds of hands-off-wheel, the vehicle will start to slow. Tesla allows minutes of hands-off time; one customer reports driving 50 miles without touching the wheel. Tesla i…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN